Alleged low flying prosecution [Archive]

Cyclic Hotline

11th Apr 2006, 04:00

Neighbour 'buzzed my home with helicopter'
By Richard Savill
(Filed: 11/04/2006)

Visitors to an open day at the 17th century home of a former Royal Navy captain were terrified when a neighbour "buzzed" them in his helicopter, a court heard yesterday.

William Gueterbock, who was second in command of Ark Royal in the early 1970s, told magistrates that the helicopter, piloted by Martin Perrett, was flying so low that he feared that the downdraft would damage his thatched roof.

Perrett, 49, denies a charge of flying within 500ft of personal property without permission from the Civil Aviation Authority.

Perrett, who runs an agricultural waste disposal business and lives on a farm 200 yards from Capt Gueterbock in the Dorset village of Buckland Newton, flew over his neighbour's house at 100ft, it was alleged.

Capt Gueterbock's wife, Jeanette, had to duck, and children burst into tears because of the noise, magistrates in Sherborne heard. At one stage, Perrett allegedly started to "rock" his Enstrom 280C aircraft from side to side as it hovered over the garden.

Following the incident on April 3 last year, Capt Gueterbock, 75, wrote a letter of complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority, which brought the prosecution.

The court heard that Capt Gueterbock and his wife had opened up the gardens of their home, Dominey's Yard, to the public as part of the National Garden Scheme.

About 40 adults and children were assembled in the garden when Perrett allegedly made his first of three runs at 2.30pm.

Capt Gueterbock told the court: "Our garden was open under the scheme. We have been doing it for a long time and last year was our 20th anniversary.

"People came to visit from 2pm to 6pm and at one point we had over 100 people. They were all ages, from quite elderly down to families with children.

"I was in the house just after 2pm and heard a very loud noise of a helicopter flying over, and I went outside. I was horrified anybody should do that.

"It was flying towards our house and cottages from the south, south-east direction.

"I knew this helicopter was owned by Mr Perrett from Court Farm and he flew from there, but I had never seen it fly on this route before.

"The people in the garden - a lot of them were children - were absolutely terrified.

"My first view was one of total disbelief that this should happen, bearing in mind we have a thatched roof and there were people in the garden.

"I would estimate it was 80ft, maybe 100ft from the ground.

"It was just above the roof of our house and level with the top of the lime tree.

"It was doing very tight turns when it came round and was also rocking as well."

Mrs Gueterbock told magistrates: "We heard a helicopter approaching and it became louder and louder. Suddenly you couldn't hear what people were saying.

"I looked up and it was almost overhead and I instinctively ducked because it was so low.

"It was coming over the house, it was overhead. It came up from the field and across the back garden and over our house.

"There were lots of children and they were very distressed, and some were crying."

Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said Perrett normally took off and landed in a different direction to the route he took on the day in question.

She said: "There were a number of low flights from the helicopter over and around and close to the house and people in the garden.

"You will hear witness statements that normally when this helicopter is taking off or landing it does so over open land and away from the village. When Mr Perrett was interviewed he admitted he was the commander of the helicopter and to making the flights, but denied flying over the house and considered his actions to be in accordance with normal aircraft procedure."

Keith Thomas, flight standards officer for the CAA, told the court: "There is absolutely no excuse for a single engine helicopter to fly over someone's property at 100ft.

"If I was issuing a permit for this activity, which I was not asked to do, I would not have. It is not considered to be safe in my view."

The Gueterbocks' son, Richard, who had been selling cut flowers on the day for charity, took photographs of Perrett's helicopter and sent them to the CAA. The helicopter is registered to Perrett's company, Buckland Newton Hire Ltd.

During his 30-year naval career Capt Gueterbock commanded a number of ships, including the minesweeper Wotton, the frigate Russell, and the frigate Galatea in the Cod War in the 1970s.

He retired from the Royal Navy in 1982.

The trial continues.

breakscrew

11th Apr 2006, 14:36

I feel for this guy. We have a serial complainer nearby who is a typical NIMBY, who accused me of flying over his house at 75', when in fact I was 600' on the radalt and 300m laterally. People on the ground, particularly those with a grudge always underestimate the height of aircraft. Anyway, I thought you were allowed to fly below 500' when on an approach to land. I wish the CAA would stick up for aviators for a change instead of jumping in to a prosecution at the first opportunity. :*

headsethair

11th Apr 2006, 15:30

I thought you were allowed to fly below 500' when on an approach to land

...when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practise....is the precise wording of rule 5.

And I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except an a govt or licensed airfield. If the building is also occupied by people, then you're in double jeopardy.

Heliport

11th Apr 2006, 16:19

headsethair
I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except an a govt or licensed airfield.
Are you sure?
Does that mean a pilot can't legally land closer than 500' to his house? Or the hangar at the bottom of his garden?

Are you possibly confusing two different exemptions from the low flying prohibitions?
Exemption from any low flying prohibition if flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off, landing etc at a government or licensed aerodrome, and an exemption from the 500' rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.

You're in double jeopardy if the building is occupied?Does that mean you're in triple jeopardy if there’s a vehicle parked outside the house?
And quadruple jeopardy if there’s a vessel on a trailer attached to the vehicle?

;)

headsethair

11th Apr 2006, 16:41

Heliport: I tug my forelock - but stand by my assertion.

Rule 5(3)(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.
My point is based on real things demanded by the CAA. Whenever we get a low flying exemption from the CAA it specifically does not permit low flying over buildings occupied by people. They could therefore argue that "normal aviation practice" forbids the oveflying of occupied buildings at less than 500ft. The counter to this would be at an airfield (licensed or Govt) where there are established procedures - and those procedures may take you closer than 500ft to occupied buildings. You would be able to claim, therefore, that you are indeed complying with normal aviation practice.

I am making no comment about the ongoing case - but the fact that the CAA Flight Standards Officer has given evidence about "no exemption was applied for" would seem to suggest that they will attempt to nail this pilot for not following normal aviation practice if he tries to say that he was landing or taking off.

As for "jeopardy" - I am merely pointing to the fact that m'learneds for the CAA will no doubt try to lay as many offences into this as possible in the hope of making things look as bleak as possible for the defendant.

OK - I'll make one comment about the evidence so far. Feel free to delete it if you wish. There were children who cried. That's it then - forget the law - this man made children cry. It'll be endangerment.

nigelh

11th Apr 2006, 17:00

Whichever way you look at it i think the pilot is wrong and playing into the "Antis" hands. There is no possible reason for coming low over a house if there is an open way in , which in this case there was. Why did he not come in down the open route and save all this trouble ? I would be pissed off if my neighbour did that, especially if it was in an Enstrom....:E :E

ps and dont argue it was down wind....who cares ?

Heliport

11th Apr 2006, 17:21

Whenever we get a low flying exemption from the CAA it specifically does not permit low flying over buildings occupied by people.
I agree, it's a standard condition, but that's a "low flying exemption" and you're flying over not in the course of landing.
I'm sure you're right the CAA will say it's not "normal aviation practice" to overfly buildings at less than 500ft and tell the court the taking off and landing exemption doesn't apply - but that's not what Rule 5 says. The danger is the magistrates are likely to assume the CAA must be right because the CAA regulates aviation in the UK.

I noticed the Flight Standards Officer's comments. Many people think it's wrong the CAA uses in-house tame experts.

Making things look as bleak as possible for the pilot? SOP from what I hear. The same reason they used the evidence (claims anyway) about children crying. Nothing to do with the offence - but all good prejudicial stuff. :rolleyes:

There must be some very tall people in that part of the world. Some of them 'ducked' when the helicopter flew over at allegedly 100 feet! ;)

nigelh
"Whichever way you look at it i think the pilot is wrong" That's the spirit. Don't wait until we've heard the pilot's side of the story, let's just condemn the pilot on the basis of the prosecution/complainers version reported in the press. :rolleyes:

" and dont argue it was down wind....who cares ?"
Err .... some pilots? :confused:

headsethair

11th Apr 2006, 17:39

Given that this case has received wide coverage across the National press today - and no doubt even more when a conclusion is reached - might be a good idea for heli pilots to give a wide berth to certain areas over the Easter weekend. Particularly if we get fine weather.

They've all got camera phones now.

HillerBee

11th Apr 2006, 18:02

The neighbour was not only complaining about the flying, he had been complaining about a lot for the last few years. Martin did not fly over the house and there are no pictures to prove that.

An interesting fact is that Buckland Newton is in the middle of the Yeovilton South Training Area. There are all kinds of helicopters and airplanes flying very, very low all the time. Chinooks coming over very low is common practice. So (almost) everybody in this area is used to helicopters.

nigelh

11th Apr 2006, 20:03

Heliport. I think you sound very defensive . We are almost all pilots here and of course would defend each other, but surely not at any cost ! IF it is true that he flew over at 100" or less you must admit that is poor PR on our behalf at least and probably poor airmanship. I also repeat that i would do the clear entry down wind .....what is your problem with that ???
I know plenty of people who operate in sensitive areas and upset nobody due to common sense ( and downwind landings shock horror !!!)
some moderators:confused:

Heliport

11th Apr 2006, 21:12

nigelh
I think you sound very defensive . If thinking it's wrong to condemn someone before hearing both sides is defensive, then I'm defensive. (I wonder if the press will report both sides.)
If thinking it's wrong to condemn someone on the strength of some complainers' version of events is defensive, then I'm defensive.
If being extra suspicious when the complainers are neighbours is defensive, then I'm defensive.
The pilot says he didn't break the law. If it's defensive to assume that's true at this early stage, then I'm defensive.
IF it is true that he flew over at 100" or less ...... "IF" - that's an improvement.
It's not what you said originally.

No, I don't "admit that is poor PR on our behalf at least and probably poor airmanship."
I'd need more information, in particular to know what the pilot says about it, before I could decide.

Hidden Agenda

12th Apr 2006, 02:58

As, with the exception of Heliport (God Bless his socks), we seem to have skipped the presentation of the defence’s argument, the deliberation of the Court, and the verdict, can we look at the sentence?

In my part of the world the maximum penalty is one year in prison and a US$ 3,100 / GBP 1,775 (approx) fine. What is it where you operate?

malabo

12th Apr 2006, 03:22

.......Keith Thomas, flight standards officer for the CAA, told the court: "There is absolutely no excuse for a single engine helicopter to fly over someone's property at 100ft.......

Admittedly the operation of helicopters in the UK is pretty strange stuff to the rest of us pirates, but "no excuse for a single engine helicopter"? If poor Captain Perrett traded in his Enstrom for an S61, would he be scot-free (I know, probably a poor choice of expression for you Aberdeen locals)?

malabo

Bravo73

12th Apr 2006, 08:26

Here's a thought. IF the single, engined aircraft was flying 100ft above the house, might not the CAA's primary concern (or grounds for prosecution) be Rule 5, (2) (a):

Failure of power unit

An aircraft shall not be flown below such a height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.

As far as I know, there aren't any exemptions that can get you around this rule but prosecution on this point could possibly be avoided by malabo's example of using a (light!) S61...?

Heliport

12th Apr 2006, 09:11

IF the single engined aircraft was flying 100ft above the house, and the power unit failed, maybe the house is the safest place to be? ;)

B Sousa

12th Apr 2006, 11:29

"IF the single engined aircraft was flying 100ft above the house"

Actually theres another quotient there. It also depends on how fast at 100'.. Have done many high speed autos, low level and one can float a long ways......... Maybe even end up two neighbors away. ha ha

Runway37

12th Apr 2006, 12:28

One of the most important things that most of you have missed is the fact that they have a photo of the helicopter flying low.

I got busted for this in OZ; flying low on a prec-search on a field when I technically didn't have permission to land there. Someone took a photo and sent it to the law makers and I was BUSTED!

A possible defence here would be that if "someone" had invited him to fly over the house (ie. implied permission to land or fly low over the property), you might be ok. (atleast in OZ anyway). If it happens to turn out later that the person that gave permission but wasn't authorised by the property owner to do so; the pilot may have an out, because he didn't know that.

1972

12th Apr 2006, 13:06

One of the most important things that most of you have missed is the fact that they have a photo of the helicopter flying low.

The only image I've seen of this shows the chopper in nothing but blue sky. No trees, buildings etc. which could have been used to even approximate an altitude that the chopper is alleged to have been flying at. What's more, this image includes no detail to suggest where or what it was flying over.

If the aforementioned image that I've seen is in fact the evidence, it proves nothing. Could have been taken with a zoom lens and it could've been taken anywhere.

So, my question is, has anyone seen an image with more detail (besides one of a chopper in blue sky) that incriminates the pilot more than the sad sorry image I've been witness to?!

Incidentally, has there been a history of these neighbours not getting along?

Stringfellow Dork

12th Apr 2006, 13:28

...when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practise....is the precise wording of rule 5.
And I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except at a govt or licensed airfield.

I may just be about to show myself as a jumped-up, naive, neophyte, student CPL, wanabee (hope not!) but...

Surely landing and taking off within 500ft of buildings (with consent of the landowner of the landing site) is the whole point of helicopters and therefore "normal aviation practise"? No?!

Why can't the CAA just spell it out (just a bit at least) so that the rules aren't so open to interpretation/confusion?

muffin

12th Apr 2006, 13:50

Not guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4903372.stm
Sense prevails. I would imagine the planning dispute had something to do with it.

Heliport

12th Apr 2006, 17:03

Still think I was being defensive, nigelh? ;)

H.

Daysleeper

13th Apr 2006, 08:02

Dear oh dear you would have hoped the CAA would have more sense than getting in the middle of a planning dispute.

The sooner the right to prosecute gets removed from the CAA the better.

ShyTorque

13th Apr 2006, 08:17

Strange how retired senior officers are often the most vociferous when it comes to complaints. I remember a retired Navy commander who used to constantly complain about helis from Shawbury using the training area near his property for confined areas practice!

One could see either view here, though, it might have happened as alleged or not.... might have been exaggerated.

Cyclic Hotline

13th Apr 2006, 12:13

You are indeed correct Shy Torque. The most vociferous objector to helicopter noise in South Nutfield was a retired Admiral (Sea Lord?) resident in the village.

The second most vociferous was a senior member of the management of the company operating there, also resident in the village, who would anonymously call the tower and complain EVERY time the training school pilots were night flying in the 47's. He figured (quite correctly as it turned out) that by calling EVERY time they were night flying that they would stay away from the village and he wouldn't have to deal with the fall out the next day at work!

Quite a clever strategy actually! :)

rotorboater

13th Apr 2006, 14:55

I hear that the biggest complainer at Kemble is an ex airline pilot that moved there, you would have thought he knew what an airfield looked like!

Bravo73

13th Apr 2006, 15:28

I hear that the biggest complainer at Kemble is an ex airline pilot

Nah, I'm sure it's a chicken farmer...! :} :E :p

(Memories, eh? Oh happy days).

Stinky Pete

14th Apr 2006, 19:04

I hear that the biggest complainer at Kemble is an ex airline pilot that moved there, you would have thought he knew what an airfield looked like!

Quite correct except that he moved here 30 years ago when the military & Arrows were still in residence.

ShyTorque

14th Apr 2006, 19:32

Nah, I'm sure it's a chicken farmer...! :} :E :p
(Memories, eh? Oh happy days).

Surely not! IIRC, the chicken farmer was so pleased to see a helicopter he threw his hat in the air. ;)

Helinut

14th Apr 2006, 21:12

Does anyone know what proportion of cases the CAA loses? It feels as though they seem to lose rather a lot. I suppose someone could always ask them.:hmm:

bvgs

1st May 2006, 13:05

I recently took my wife for lunch at a country house hotel and was told by the owners to land on a specific lawn which I did. It was about 100ft from the building which was full of people having lunch. So did I break the law?

If I wheel my heli out of my hanger at home and take off from the hardstanding next to it (60ft away) or land on it returning is this breaking the law?

Perhaps we should just tie them to a lampost witha 500ft rope and let them hover 'til we return ( copyright S Wright).

Seriously whats the score here?????:confused:

puntosaurus

1st May 2006, 15:27

Rule 5 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf) - You tell us.

Heliport

1st May 2006, 17:31

What answer would you give?

delta3

1st May 2006, 17:45

Prepairing a trip to UK-EI, I'll take this as a test, based on the reading material provided by punto:

Landing, so 500 feet rules does not apply.

In most other countries there would be another rules stating that the landing spot (2 diameters..) must be secured from people access, so if not the case at least marshaller should be present to prevent people from rushing to the heli....

my 2cents...

headsethair

1st May 2006, 18:44

Here we go. Rule 5 again. The world's most re-written rule which still manages to confuse.

"5.3.(a)(ii).....landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practise....."

Define normal ? Does normal mean landing closer than 500 ft to a structure which contains persons ? Obviously if the flight is PT there are other rules which prohibit landing next to buildings.....aren't there ?

But what about the catch-all requirement which will be lobbed into your lap by any prosecuting lawyer who's read the ANO......we are all required to fly without endangering people or property on the surface. Until your skids touch mother earth, you're flying.

I think a good guideline can be construed from 5.3 (i)(i) - the reference to flying/manoeuvring at a licensed aerdrome and the 60 metre cordon sanitaire required to any persons, vessels, vehicles, structures located outside the aerdrome or site.

60 m from any person etc when landing is probably a good idea. But then I'm thinking more about R44 downwash than Chinook.

puntosaurus

1st May 2006, 19:34

What answer would you give?
On the assumption that this site is not a 'congested area', then delta3 is correct. The relevant rule is the 500ft rule, and you are exempt as long as you are taking off and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice (ie. not practicing autos to hover recovery !). However since this is not a licensed A/D you are not exempt from the requirement to avoid damage to persons or property on the surface in the event of an engine failure, so make sure you have a plan for that.

If your site is in a congested area then you'll need CAA permission to exempt you from the 1000ft rule. The ANO defines a ‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, as any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. If you're in doubt as to whether the CAA would define your hotel as being part of a settlement, then you can ask them. £94 will buy you the answer to your question, and if necessary an annual exemption to land there, if they see fit.

As to your house, same applies. In addition the town and country planning act exempts you from the need for planning permission for up to 28 days use in any year.

Helipolarbear

1st May 2006, 19:56

The poor ships Captain....Ark Royal......is that still floating???
Course the pilot could have been taking avoiding action from potential multiple bird strikes. Glad the letter of the law applies. Could have gone a different way, though!:)

bvgs

1st May 2006, 20:25

This rule 5 only seems to confuse matters and leaves many areas open to interpretation. So I'm at a licenced airfield and told to hover taxi to the fuel pumps which obviously don't have a 60 metre hose????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

bladeslapper

1st May 2006, 20:45

Puntosaurus

I think you will find that the 28 day rule actually refers to 'change of use'. This would be applicable if you were landing on a farm paddock next to your house.
If you are landing within the curtilage of your house then the 28 day change of use rule does not apply.

headsethair

1st May 2006, 21:42

bvgs: So I'm at a licenced airfield and told to hover taxi to the fuel pumps which obviously don't have a 60 metre hose?????
Read the rule - 60m from anything OUTSIDE the airfield boundary. (Mind you I can think of many airfields that have pumps very close to their boundary fence.)

And the 28 day rule does not apply to curtilage. Our quaint country and its quaint old language. Please don't get us started on the definition of curtilage.......

puntosaurus

1st May 2006, 21:46

bladeslapper - Happy to be corrected.

bvgs - I'm guessing here (and I'm no CAA defender) but I hope that the CAA would accept that hovertaxiing between landing pads and fuel pumps constitutes landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. I'm hoping the manoeuvring rule would only be invoked to deal with something that was clearly not landing and taking off, eg. quickstops.

Heliport

1st May 2006, 21:51

Aren't the CAA wonderful?

They spend months (or was it a couple of years?) cobbling together a new rule 5 to replace the old one that everyone found difficult to understand/apply and all they come up with is a new rule that everyone finds difficult to understand/apply.

:rolleyes:

TorqueStripe

1st May 2006, 22:40

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600m of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 150 meters to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Now, who can explain the differences, besides the pain in the ass formulation of Rule 5?

headsethair

2nd May 2006, 05:30

There was a big discussion on this when Rule 5 was changed a year ago - here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=170796)

Thebigblade

2nd May 2006, 17:29

I was visting the place on that day and CAN say that he was flying low right over the house so I can't see how he got away with it . It people like that who give other flyer bad names :mad:

Heliport

2nd May 2006, 20:57

Gaseous

2nd May 2006, 22:42

As a PPL who does a lot of flying into private sites, here is my take on Rule 5 for what its worth.
The British mentality is to gold plate rules and make them more restrictive and complex than the drafter of the rule intended. Assuming you are not near an open air assemby of 1000 people the only bits of rule 5 that apply to a helicopter WHEN LANDING or TAKING OFF outside a congested area are paragraphs:

2a. Failure of the power unit. An aircraft shall not be flown below such a height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
and
3a (ii). "Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice."

I think we can take it that a few properties in the vicinity of the LZ does not constitute a congested area.

To Thebigblade, I would argue that overflying a single house at a hundred feet on approach does not contravene para 2a, as in the event of a power failure it will be possible to avoid hitting the house using normal piloting skills. The aircraft is exempt from the 500 ft rule. It isn't considerate or good PR but its not illegal.

So, you can land anywhere as long as you dont risk crashing into someones house and it is normal practice. Great. Whats normal?
For me, as a PPL(H) using a helicopter for personal transport, it is normal practice to land in some pretty damn difficult areas at confined private sites which are sometimes very near to public areas and other peoples private property. Many of these sites are hotels/pubs.
A few examples:

Devonshire arms. LZ is 20 yards from the seating area outside the Bistro. No fence between the drinking public and the landing aircraft.
Old Stone Trough near Foulridge. LZ is literally in the car park.
Swan. Newby Bridge. LZ adjacent to car park.
Fayrer Gardens. It is almost impossible not to overfly someones property on the approach.
etc, etc.

On the basis that these and many others are normal aviation practice, landing pretty much anywhere should be defensible in court provided you are sensible and can justify it.
As was the case here, you should be found not guilty however may people you irritate.

Pissing people off is not against the law but may put you in a position where you may have to defend your actions in court, and being in the right does not guarantee you will win the case, such is the lottery of the British legal system.

Fly considerately - try to stay out of court.

Thomas coupling

3rd May 2006, 07:22

Gaseous: just because these pubs have landing sites doesn't give the pilot carte blanche to shoot an apporoach:ooh:

Rule 5(d): blah blah blah...."conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface".
Is the critical bit. You can't land at a pub where you intend to touch down 20 yds from the public, just because it's a legal landing site??????

YOU the pilot have to take every measure to minimise damage to persons vehicles vessels and structures....OR ELSE accept the consequences.

puntosaurus

3rd May 2006, 08:31

I'm tempting the wrath of the ppruners here, but IMHO the reason Rule 5 is not as straightforward as we'd like is because the issues it attempts to deal with are not straightforward.

Everyone (I hope !) would agree that good judgement, solid airmanship, and good neighbourliness are the key issues about using non-licensed sites. If the world was a perfect place, we could end with that.

As an attempt to codify what that means, Rule 5 is IMHO not a bad shot. It focuses on what it is we're trying to prevent (damage to persons or property in the event of engine failure) rather than attempting to substitute for pilot's judgement. As the outcome in the case underlying this thread clearly shows, it is actually a pilot's best line of defence against small mindedness and nimbyism IF we behave 'reasonably' .

If I could add one final point, the reason I posted a link to the text of Rule 5 wasn't just to be glib it's that IMHO more people actually read the rule, rather than relying on other people's interpretations, then they'd be better equipped. If you know the rules then you can interpret them and fly with confidence rather than adopting the slightly hunted tone we often see in these pages.

Gaseous

3rd May 2006, 14:46

TC. You are correct in that the pilot must accept the consequences of his actions.

I would contend that you have the right to 'shoot an appraoch' as you put it as long as you are not outside the law. The law in this case being rule 5.

quote:

Rule 5(d): blah blah blah...."conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface".

I suggest you re-read Rule 5 as there is no such clause in it. It is hard enough for people to interpret the rule without having to contend with exta bits that you think should be in it. Puntosaurus posted the link above. I assume that this is the most recent version of rule 5. If you can post a link which includes your clause I will stand corrected.

I chose my example sites carefully as they all get lots of traffic and so I would contend are 'normal practice'.

it is quite possible to comply with Rule 5 para 2a at all these sites.

There is nothing in rule 5 which says you cannot land 20 yards from the public. It is quite possible to do this at a certain apron at EGNH. Whether it is sensible to do so is up to the pilot.

headsethair

3rd May 2006, 15:01

Ah. This might make the great TC blush and hide. He's confused his rules.

First 5(d), as noted by TC, hasn't existed in Rule 5 since last April. 5(d) was in the old Rule 5.

What he has quoted is almost an extract from the ICAO Rules of the Air. But not quite. See below. So TC - go to the bike shed and take with you an ANO 2005. And whilst you're there, check you're not in possession of an old PAOM....

ICAO Annex 2 Chapter 3 Paragraph 3.1.2 - Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

ICAO Annex 2 Chapter 4 Paragraph 4.6
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
a) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1,000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;
b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water.

And why do we always have to assume/operate as if the "public" is completely devoid of brain cells ? Why can't they take responsibility for their own actions ? See a helicopter obviously coming into land - move to a safe distance. (Yes - I am a realist - they actually run towards it....)

Thebigblade

3rd May 2006, 21:03

Thebigblade
How kind of you to register just to post your version.

"I can't see how he got away with it"
Err .... because the court heard both sides and decided the pilot didn't break the law. :ok:

Were you one of those who (allegedly :rolleyes: ) had to duck?

No Im not the one that had to duck . It was not a court but three prats who decided and I was there so I know what I saw on that day not you or the three prats and if I could download into this site I would show you and others . plus the pilot did break the law it just the three prats could not say if he did or not fly over the house . Yes i did register just to say the truth :cool: :mad: :}

to gaseous (To Thebigblade, I would argue that overflying a single house at a hundred feet on approach does not contravene para 2a, as in the event of a power failure it will be possible to avoid hitting the house using normal piloting skills. The aircraft is exempt from the 500 ft rule. It isn't considerate or good PR but its not illegal.)
It was not just one house but a number of house and power line in the path he took, and he should have took the approach which he nomal does which is over open land .

Hughes500

3rd May 2006, 21:57

BigBlade

(Deleted)

I know it's tempting, but .........
Heliport

Heliport

3rd May 2006, 22:25

The rule quoted by TorqueStripe looks very much like the FAA low flying rule.

Short, easy to understand and, best of all, a sensible provision for helicopters.

Cyclic Hotline

4th May 2006, 01:10

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a phat?

It is a term I have never come across.

FloaterNorthWest

4th May 2006, 05:41

Gaseous,

You say: "There is nothing in rule 5 which says you cannot land 20 yards from the public."

I think there is:

Rule 5 (i) Manoeuvring helicopters

A helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.

Apart from 60 metres, another key word is 'permission'. Are the sites you mentioned licenced, inspected or approved? Just because a land owner says helicopters can land doesn't make it right or safe.

I would be shocked to hear that you or any other helicopter pilots have been landing 20 yards from an uncontrolled group of the public. The apron at EGNH, is there a fence around it?

I have seen and attended a lot of accidents were small, usually privately owned helicopters, have gone into sites that are either too small or unsuitable.

The rotary world in UK has a hard enough time getting the support of the public, let's not give them any more ammunition.

FNW.

headsethair

4th May 2006, 05:46

Cyclic: What sort of edumification did you have ? Below is the Macmillan English Dictionary definition of phat. And I now don't understand the context in which BB used the word. phucced if i no.

Phat is an informal term for expressing general approval for someone or something, and can be used in expressing admiration of various qualities, including being fashionable, intelligent, cool or sexy. Dated as ‘late 20th century’, phat is now beginning to enter the latest editions of mainstream dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Earlier this year it appeared in the new edition of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and a July 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/) reports its inclusion in the eleventh edition of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The term has also this year been added to the new edition of the Oxford English Dictionary along with other terms from ‘rap’ culture such as bling bling, meaning ‘expensive, ostentatious clothing or jewellery, or the wearing of them’. Background
The adjective phat has emerged from hip hop, a cultural movement originating among young African Americans in the United States and associated with rap music, graffiti art and breakdancing. Deriving from Black English Vernacular, phat is a deliberate misspelling of fat, intended to invert its meaning, though it has also been associated with descriptions of ‘rounded’ rear body shapes of black American women.
Phat often appears in advertising slogans precisely because it looks like a misspelling of fat, e.g. phat farm, and is often used alongside words which carry similar plays on spelling, e.g. phat phasun (fashion) or as seen in the citation above ‘Our goal … is to keep you PHITTED (fitted) in the PHATEST gear…’ .

aeromys

4th May 2006, 08:46

Who gives a phat?

headsethair

4th May 2006, 09:16

i wuz walkin twarz de phato las phriday wen i sore a elicoter doin a phorced landin. e phloo it dan phrom abaat 1000 pht and it like didn't ave no engin or nuphin makin a noiz. den i wen to de caphe an got me bacon sarnie an a cuppa. then i met me matz who were well phat an we got our phatest gear outta de shed. we phlew off chasin chavs pher a coupla hourz. i did awl de phlying and de chattin on de raydio. de bloke in de control tower sed
"yo! perlice 356. yo is cleared pher take oph. wind 240 15 notz."
i sed "ey oop batty boy. yo is well out oph orda. i ain't got no problems wiv me kerphupher valve. yo should stop behavin like orl dem girly pilotz and get yourselph back in menz cloves!"
dat made me larph orl day. wicked man. dis is a cool job.
(dis is de phirst time i ave writted anyphink wiv paragraffs.)

Thomas Coupling
Age 16

Helinut

4th May 2006, 13:50

FNW,

Not at all sure about your interpretation of the new Rule 5. If it were me being hung out to dry, I would say that I was relying on the exemption available during take-off and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice (Exemption 3(a)(i)). If that exemption applies, then it says I don't need to keep more than 500 feet from all those things we are not supposed to go close to. It doesn't add anything else.

I think that your reference to the "manoeuvring helicopters" clause is a bit of red herring. It only applies to licensed airfields. As the note from the CAA says, it is intended to allow "ground cushion manoeuvres" to be done at such airfields, most likely during training.

Of course, we will only know when some poor mug gets taken to a higher court.

For those of you who don't have the "privilege" of having to fly in the UK - please forgive us for boring the pants off you. Put it another way, just think how lucky you are not to have to fly here.........

Cyclic Hotline

4th May 2006, 15:00

Thanks for the info hsh, I guess I must have formally turned into an old fart, when I have no comprehension of the modern vernacular! I did enjoy the example of it in context though, made me laugh that did!:)

Maybe in this instance, it should be Rule Phive? :8

headsethair

4th May 2006, 16:39

Maybe in this instance, it should be Rule Phive?

too many capitals
:D

Gaseous

4th May 2006, 19:15

FNW. I agree with your sentiments about small helis at difficult sites but rule 5 does not prohibit their use. The apron at EGNH has a fence.

5(3)i is interesting but does not apply to aircraft landing and taking off outside licensed aerodromes. There is a note attached to rule 5, not forming part of it which specifically refers to 5(3)i stating it does not apply to helicopters flying under the exemption of 5(3)a2 - exemption from the 500ft rule when landing and taking off.

It seems to me 5(3)i is there to cover the CAA so that you can not fly close enough to hurt anyone except yourself when they have issued a license. Outside licensed aerodromes it is the pilots responsibility.

Do you police pilots need to get out more and see what joe public PPL(h) uses his/her helicopter for? Normal aviation practice for them is not landing in the middle of a bloody big airfield. This includes lots of Ppruners who use these and similar sites. I'm sure this will not be a surprise to the CAA.

Rule 5 Is really not terribly restrictive at all but dont expect not to be in deep trouble if you push your luck and it all goes horribly wrong. They will prosecute you for something. I'm not advocating cavalier flying. Far from it.

I think The CAA did a good job with the revised rule 5 as they removed overly restrictive rot such as the clause trotted out by TC. Bear in mind it has to apply to all flying contrivances. I maintain the only two parts that apply to landing helicopters outside congested areas and gatherings are 5(2)a and 5(3)a2. This is my interpretation and I am not a lawyer. I doubt we will get an opinion from FL. How about it Tudor?

Back to the original post in this thread, the pilot was not proven to have broken rule 5 so was found not guilty. He annoyed people but that is not a crime and I do not condone it.

Sorry if this is boring some but if it dispels some of the misunderstandings about rule 5 it is worth pursuing.

FloaterNorthWest

5th May 2006, 09:25

Gaseous & Helinut,

Thanks for your points, they are noted and crammed into the small space in my brain that is not filled with rubbish. I have read the ANO a number of times and each time the ending is different, that's probably why it's such a best seller!

Gaseous, as to your question about police pilots. Of the 9 ASUs I have flown at NONE of them are interested in chasing or checking up on PPL holders and their activities. Unfortunately there seems to be a misconception that police pilots go around looking for bad pilots. What does happen, is that an ASU is tasked by a higher authority either police, CAA, etc. to gather evidence if an investigation is on going. They carry out that task and it may later be published and people then think that the ASU have generated the complaint. Of course, in any profession there are the "jobworths" who see themselves as the guardians of all that is good and seek out wrong doers of even the smallest infringement. They also know that helis can land anywhere, that's why we are better than plank drivers, but like all very experienced pilots they hate to see inexperienced pilots do things that they have been shown or seen and consider 'normal aviation practice', when there is a better and safer way of doing things.

I have now left the police world and am now flying a S76 for a private owner and for charter and the ANO is high up on my reading list along with the Ops Manual, RFM, various CAPs, EASA Part M & 145............isn't flying fun. Police flying was so much easier, one book and lots of exemptions!

FNW :ok:

Gaseous

5th May 2006, 11:30

FNW
Argh no, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you (or anyone else) do or should persecute PPLs. I was surprised that some of the 'real' professional pilots posting here were unware of what conditions popular private sites have to offer PPLs. But then why should they be aware if they never go to these sites? Its a totally different type of flying to what they do for a living. For a lot of owner PPLs, the ability to use this type of site is the main justification for owning a helicopter.

I am comfortable, but not complacent about the legality and the risks of what I do and where I land.

I agree totally about inexperienced pilots. Just because a private site is published in a guide and it is possible to use it without breaking the law, it does not make it suitable for an inexperienced PPL. Some are really tricky.
I am still wary of landing at a site I have not visited on the ground first.

Best regards
PS
S76 - lucky sod.:ok: